US weapons team quits Iraq

[scooobiedooobie]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
this your evidence?

''It may be that there are no large stockpiles, as Dr. Kay has stated.

It is entirely possible that the much sought-after WMD stockpiles may be literally right under the feet of coalition forces.''

where i come from that's called gas.

what i'd like to know is how you can make posts without reading them.

jack..you're only looking for a reason to disclaim the existence of wmd's. that's all that really interests you, so no matter what is posted you'll see only what you want to see.

another thing....why do you show regard just for the opinions you happen to agree with, while constantly showing disdain for anyone with a differing opinion?

you might at least try to be more balanced.

[JackSpratts]

i'll start taking your position seriously when you do scooby. but so far it's been smoke, mirrors, inuendos and falsehoods, and digs at positions you find disagreable.

show me actual evidence that disputes kay's position that there are no wmds, that makes a truth teller out of bush, and i along with the entire world will sit up and take notice.

- js.

[JackSpratts]

Admit WMD Mistake, Survey Chief Tells Bush
Julian Borger

David Kay, the man who led the CIA's postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has called on the Bush administration to "come clean with the American people" and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons.

In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Kay said the administration's reluctance to make that admission was delaying essential reforms of US intelligence agencies, and further undermining its credibility at home and abroad.

He welcomed the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate prewar intelligence on Iraq, and said the wide-ranging US investigation was much more likely to get to the truth than the Butler inquiry in Britain. That, he noted, had "so many limitations it's going to be almost impossible" to come to meaningful conclusions.

Mr Kay, 63, a former nuclear weapons inspector, provoked uproar at the end of January when he told the Senate that "we were almost all wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

He also resigned from the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which he was appointed by the CIA to lead in the hunt for weapons stockpiles, saying its resources had been diverted in the fight against Iraqi insurgents.

"I was more worried that we were still sending teams out to search for things that we were increasingly convinced were not there," Mr Kay said.

His call for a frank admission is an embarrassment for the White House at the start of an election year. The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has dismissed Mr Kay's assertion that there were no WMD at the start of the Iraq war as a "theory" that was "possible, but not likely".

In his state of the union speech in January, George Bush did not refer to his prewar claims that Iraq was an "immediate threat" but instead said the ISG had found "weapons of mass destruction-related programme activities".

Mr Kay, who was formerly a UN weapons inspector, called for the president to go further. "It's about confronting and coming clean with the American people. He should say we were mistaken and I am determined to find out why," he said.

A White House official said it was too early to draw conclusions: "The ISG is still working, and the commission on this has not even started."

However, Mr Kay said that continued evasion would create public cynicism about the administration's motives, which he believes reflected a genuine fear of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. He also said that if the administration did not confront the Iraq intelligence fiasco head-on it would undermine its credibility with its allies in future crises "for a generation".

Mr Kay said that he had become convinced there were no WMD to be found several months ago, before presenting an interim report to Congress last October saying no stockpiles had been found, but he said the CIA and the Blair government were nervous about the impact of his conclusions.

"I think the greatest concern about the report was in London rather than in Washington. It was a different political issue in London than it was here," he said, referring to the storm around the death of his former UN colleague David Kelly.

Mr Kay said he had been expecting Dr Kelly's arrival in Iraq to help the search for biological weapons programmes, and had spoken to him shortly before his death. "He never had any doubts about Iraq's programmes," Mr Kay said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...160819,00.html

[scooobiedooobie]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
show me actual evidence that disputes kay's position that there are no wmds, that makes a truth teller out of bush, and i along with the entire world will sit up and take notice.

kay never said there are no wmds. read his words...

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons program was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.

We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

Originally posted by JackSpratts
i'll start taking your position seriously when you do scooby. but so far it's been smoke, mirrors, inuendos and falsehoods, and digs at positions you find disagreable.

you just described yourself jack.

whether you take my position seriously or not is of no relevance to me. all i'm suggesting is that you stop being such an arrogant ass to anyone who disagrees with you.

[scooobiedooobie]

KAY VINDICATES BUSH

David Limbaugh
Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2004


In light of weapons inspector David Kay's recent statements, it is mystifying to me that President Bush and Republicans aren't claiming vindication and challenging Democrats for exploiting the issue. Some observations about this:

1. Kay did say we didn't discover major stockpiles of recently developed WMD in Iraq, but almost everything else he said supports the president's position, exposing his opponents as wrong and reckless. Kay said or implied that:


A. "The intelligence community owes the president [an apology] rather than the president owing [one to] the American people."

B. The administration did not pressure the intelligence agencies to overstate the WMD threat.

C. While Bush relied on possibly erroneous intelligence, so did Saddam himself and his generals, the Clinton administration, France, Germany and Britain.

D. "What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

E. Iraq was a magnet for international terrorists who were free to operate there, and plan and conduct their deadly mischief.

F. Saddam was flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions in a number of respects and feverishly trying to do so in others. While there were supposedly no major WMD stockpiles, there were probably WMDs, some of which may have been removed to Syria in the weeks preceding our invasion. Saddam was trying to weaponize the deadly agent Ricin, and he was clearly developing missile systems in contravention of the resolutions.

G. Saddam's scientists may have duped him about their progress in developing WMD.


2. Bill Clinton recently said that when he ordered the bombing of Iraq's suspected WMD sites, we couldn't be sure whether we (and Britain) destroyed all of them, 50 percent or 10 percent – because we didn't have inspectors on the ground to determine the extent of the damage.

While Clinton was trying to take credit for possibly destroying Iraq's WMD, he inadvertently exposed his party's hypocrisy. Did Democrats complain that he bombed these sites when we didn't even know if WMD were there? Did Democrats complain about weaknesses in our intelligence because we never learned whether we struck pay dirt with those bombing attacks? Did they call for an investigation?

3. It's a little hard for me to swallow the idea that just one of Saddam's scientists deceived him, much less a network of them who would have had to discuss their lies conspiratorially, increasing the chances that they would be exposed (and then murdered).

4. But, if Kay is correct that Saddam was duped, how can we say we had an avoidable failure of intelligence? If a dictator with unchecked power has faulty intelligence about his own regime, how can our intelligence agencies be blamed for having that same info?

5. Intelligence is, at best, an inexact science. It is hard to stomach all these armchair quarterbacks demanding perfection from the very intelligence organizations they and their like-minded predecessors emasculated in previous decades. If there were intelligence failures, they were probably not technological ones, but those of human intelligence (HUMINT), which is precisely what liberals weakened.

6. I question Kay's assertion that "you cannot have pre-emptive foreign or military policy unless you have pristine, perfect intelligence." Since much intelligence depends on the human factor, which is inherently imperfect, we will often not be completely certain about our intelligence. Yet, as even Kay admits, it was imperative that we act anyway. The only way we could prevent Saddam from developing and using WMD or sharing them with terrorists was to remove him from power forcibly.

7. And with all due respect to Mr. Kay and others, we did not, as I've written many times before, have the burden of proving Saddam had WMD. He had the duty of proving he had destroyed them and his programs. This he deliberately and defiantly failed to do. Our "pre-emptive" attack was justified with or without the continued existence of WMD. In this sense, it wasn't even pre-emptive; it was to enforce already violated resolutions.

8. President Bush has been pressured to conduct an independent investigation even though we don't know for sure that there was truly an intelligence failure that could realistically have been avoided. But as important as intelligence is in our war on terror, we can greatly benefit from a comprehensive review, provided its purpose remains constructive – to expose and solve problems – rather than to find a convenient scapegoat.

9. It doesn't make sense that Bush would have lied about WMD knowing that his lie would be exposed when we defeated Iraq. It's time for Democrats to "move on."

https://www.newsmax.com/archives/art.../3/10300.shtml

[AweShucks]

Not sure if anyone has caught this before? I'm getting kind of a late start around here


Who Misled Who

[scooobiedooobie]

that movie would make a perfect commercial for the bush campaign to air. it's factual and very well done..thank you for posting it.

[Malk-a-mite]

Originally posted by span
you were told, and the reason never changed

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Again - I don't like being treated like an idiot by my elected leaders.

[span]

Originally posted by Malk-a-mite
http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Again - I don't like being treated like an idiot by my elected leaders.

Rumsfeld wasn't elected. but you are an idiot

[multi]

wow ..you can be Secretary of Defense
without being elected....

only an idiot would be lame enough to try and defend a tool like rumsfeld..
retire the senile old fucker to a nursing home..imo

[Malk-a-mite]

Originally posted by span
Rumsfeld wasn't elected. but you are an idiot

I'm curious.

Is calling me an idiot an attempt to belittle me and in turn my statement, or is it an attempt to have me realize that you are right?

[span]

Originally posted by Malk-a-mite
I'm curious.

Is calling me an idiot an attempt to belittle me and in turn my statement, or is it an attempt to have me realize that you are right?

yes